Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 of the 25,141 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

Judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Officer, Race Course Road vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Arts College Road, Coimbatore

ITA 2366/CHNY/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2366, 2367 & 2370 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, No.78, Cheran Towers, Government Arts College Road, Coimbatore Tamil Nadu-641018 [Pan: Aaccc5150] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Appeals Vide Ita No.2366/Chny/2024 For Ay 2015-16 Vide Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066850730(1) Dated 19.07.2024 & Ita No.2367/Chny/2024 For Ay 2015-16 Vide No.Itba / Nfac / S / 250 /2024-25/1066924539(1) Dated 23.07.2024 & Vide Ita No.2370/Chny/2024 For Ay 2017-18 & Vide Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066850925 Dated 19.07.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi. Through The Aforesaid Appeal - 2 -:

Section 147Section 250Section 5

Pankaj Kumar Choubey, Mirzapur vs. ITO, Mirzapur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 86/ALLD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Pankaj Kumar Choubey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhorsar, Amoi, Mirzapur 3(2), Mirzapur Pan:Aaofm6183C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee For Want Of Compliance. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1- That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Order Passed U/S 144/147 Of The It Act Dated 06/12/2018 Is Bad Both On The Fact & In Law & By Such Order Income As Determined At Rs.32,22,490/- By Making Illegal Addition Is Highly Unjustified & Incorrect In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2- That Any View Of The Matter The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Was Wrong In Passing The Order Ex-Parte Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessee & The Order Is Also Not A Speaking Order In The Eyes Of Law. 3- That In Any View Of The Matter Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act Dated 26/03/2018 As Mentioned In The Order Was Not Served On The Assessee Or On Any Family Member Of The Assessee, Therefore The Allegation Of Service Of The Notice In The Order Is Incorrect.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)